Slashdot Mirror
Stuxnet Worm Claimed To Be Devastating In Iran
sciencewatcher writes "At debka.com, a website associated with intelligence communities focusing on the Middle East, the claim is made that Tehran this week secretly appealed to a number of computer security experts in West and East Europe with offers of handsome fees for consultations on ways to exorcise the Stuxnet worm spreading havoc through the computer networks and administrative software of its most important industrial complexes and military command centers."
Doesn't really matter either way...
Iran was grossly negligent in allowing their critical infrastructure to run on software controlled by a hostile government (and which they most likely had to pirate because there are export restrictions against iran).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
But I'm having a really hard time getting upset over the Iranian government being brought to a crawl by a computer virus. These ARE the same people that have made no bones about wanting to commit genocide against all Jews, and have tortured and murdered millions of their own people.
Personally, I hope it causes a total collapse. Perhaps then the Green Revolution people (those that are still alive, anyway) can have a chance at creating a true Democracy in Persia. The Persian people certainly deserve it.
What DOES worry me is that this is, in some ways, a "genie out of the bottle" moment. Formal "Weaponized" use of a computer virus to attack a state. While I'm sure it was inevitable, it is still a bit of a shock to know that the day has arrived.
All the more reason to be sure to be using a variety of redundant and disparate OS types to support your infrastructure I guess.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
If Stuxnet is attacking Iran, I'd bet on Israel (just) ahead of the US.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
It's my understanding that Stuxnet was designed to only *do only* to one certain computer/system that was specifically targeted. On all other computers that do not match the signature of that computer, it leaves them alone. So what is the "havoc" that it is causing?
I think Iran did it to themselves.
...Except for the fact that encryption software is often times classified as "military" technology, making the distribution of most software impossible.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Sadly, most industrial control stuff runs on Winderz. It's all DCOM-based and takes so much banging your head against the monitor to get configured and working properly that oftentimes, you end up having disabled most any security features available out of sheer "maybe THIS will work" frustration. When you finally DO get it working, the last thing you want to do is go back and start turning on the security features as it will just break this fragile house of cards.
At least that's been my experience with it.
Posting anonymously cuz I just kind of admitted I'm DOING IT WRONG. But I swear it's true.
Well given that they're running Windows for critical infrastructure & military command centers - apparently without AV, I'd say that yes, they did do it to themselves.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Clinton issued an executive order placing cryptographic software under the dominion of the Commerce Department with regards to export, and the Commerce Department simplified export rules to make things easier. However, they can always take it back, its not law, just policy.
The catch with the whole theory of a software hack, the stuxnet worm is far too tightly tied to Iran, hardware is far more likely to be the culprit rather than software. So hardware infrastructure in Iran, well if it was sourced from China or Russia likely safe, except of course in companies head quartered elsewhere were involved.
So access to windows source and Siemens PLC seems a must, so the really only leaves two suspects. Now if the worm in industrials plants result of industrial accidents that kill people, then clearly it would be an act of war, which would be pretty stupid because there are far more effective means of crippling infrastructure with far more primitive methods.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
> So access to windows source and Siemens PLC seems a must...
I see no need for access to Windows source, and anyone can buy the Siemens hardware.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So... its unconstitutional for the Chief Executive to issue an Executive Order to Executive Branch agencies, telling them how he thinks they should act, within their Legislatively mandated authority to craft details of policy implementation within the scope of the legislation in question?
Just because its a bitch move doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Um, no.
The executive branch was granted the power, by Congress, to make rules and regulations about exporting munitions. Previous administrations put the entirety of that power under the State Department, which had really strict rules. Clinton's order just move encryption under the Commerce Department instead of the State Department, and the Commerce Department is a lot less paranoid. (Other munitions are still under State.)
I love how people have heard about Bush's illegal signing statements, learn they are like 'executive orders', and now presume all executive orders are illegal.
Executive orders, and signing statements, (which are just executive orders that get carried along with bills), are mostly used for the president to decide things that are left for him to decide under the law.
Congress gives the President a budget and the power to do something, he signs the bill and writes an executive order (Or attaches a signing statement to the bill as he signs it, so it will always be with that bill.) making an Office of Doing That Thing in the Department of Whatever, and gives them the money.
Executive orders are just public statements of policy that the executive branch must follow, they are not 'laws', and they move power around within the executive, they don't give the executive any power.
Bush, of course, did a lot of nonsense, things like signing a bill into law and, at the same time, asserting that no one has to follow it. This was obviously bad.
But you really need a basic civics lesson about how the executive works and about how Congress gives it powers. Very often, Congress gives 'regulatory power' over things to the executive, along with a few specific regulations, and the executive branch is in charge of figuring all that out, because you don't want the damn Congress figuring out licensing fees from a Chicago TV station or what roads to build in a national forest. Congress gives the executive branch the power to figure that out, and the President writes orders putting that power under the FCC or the National Parks Service.
Of course, often Congress does specify where in the executive branch things go, and even creates new offices, which the president cannot override. This is generally frowned upon at levels lower than cabinet positions....Congress creates the top level Departments, and maybe one level below that, but generally shouldn't be micromanaging within the offices, as it makes any sort of reorganization difficult. I.e., they create the Department of Homeland Security, and put the FBI (and others) within it, and assign specific crimes for the FBI to handle...but they shouldn't really be creating offices in the FBI to handle those crimes. (Because, over time, crimes change, and the FBI might find itself with one nearly empty office and one overworked one. I mean, at one time it would have made sense to have a 'train robbery' division.)
Congress can do that, though, legally. They just shouldn't, and don't, so it's up to the president to issue executive orders.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?